Case Brief
Name of Court: Delhi High Court
Parties: Varun Bhatia v. State & Anr.
Case No.: Crl. Rev. P. 1032/2018 & Crl. M.A. 48099/2018 & Crl. M.A. 48100/2018
Date of Judgement / Order: 28.08.2023
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Topic: Gender specific legislation does not imply anti-opposite gender
Facts: X was working in a bank. Y was her superior officer. Y allegedly used to show his power and demand money from X. When X refused to give Y money on one occasion, Y abused her and called her a “gandi aurat”. Against the actions of Y, X got an FIR registered. After investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against Y. The trial court held that a prima facie case was made against Y for an offence under Sec. 509, IPC (Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman). A petition was filed against the order of the trial court to set aside the impugned order.
Issue: Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint by X can be considered sufficient material along with the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. to prima facie make out a charge under Section 509 IPC against Y?
Law: Sec. 509, IPC deals with using word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
Analysis: Arguments of parties
Y made the following submissions:
- X was a bad performer.
- X filed the complaint with a mala fide intention.
- No material evidence to frame charges against Y.
X, represented by State made the following submissions:
- The matter is merely at stage of charge and X’s contentions can be dealt with during trial.
- Y cannot be discharge because prima facie case is made out for trial.
- In a complaint by X against Y before the internal committee, the proceedings have been concluded and Y was issued a warning.
Court’s Analysis:
- The Delhi High Court made a comparison between Sec. 354, IPC (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and Sec. 509, IPC (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), to understand how outraging the modesty of a woman can occur in multiple ways including physical or verbal.
- While Sec. 354 involves physical assault or use of force against a woman, wherein her modesty is violated through actions that involve direct contact or physical harm, Sec. 509 involves instances where words, gestures, or acts are employed with the deliberate intent to insult or offend a woman’s modesty, without necessarily involving physical force.
- The court also considered the following citations while interpreting the expression “outraging the modesty of a woman” and “intention” to outraging the modesty of a woman.
- State of Punjab v. Major Singh 1966 Supp SCR 286
- Ramkripal v. State of M.P. (2007) 11 SCC 265
- Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194
- Abhijeet J.K. v. State of Kerala 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 703
- Swapna Barman v. Subir Das 2003 SCC OnLine Gau 196
- The court held that when the words “gandi aurat” are literally translated, it means “dirty woman”. When the words are objectively assessed, they “do not have the potential to elicit a strong feeling of shock in a reasonable person, whether male or female.”
- The court also held as follows: “The word ‘Gandi Aurat’ read in isolation, without context, without any preceding or succeeding words indicating intent to outrage modesty of a woman will not bring these words within the ambit of Section 509 IPC. Had there been any mention of any other words used, context given or any other gesture etc. made accompanying, succeeding or preceding these words, reflecting criminal intent to outrage the modesty of a woman, the outcome of the case would have been different.”
- In the given context, Y’s language was not profane or vulgar or sexually coloured, but may hinge on harsh, derogatory language. The court held also that that “Insulting a woman or being rude to her and not behaving with her as she would have expected you to behave in a chivalrous manner will not be covered under the definition of outraging the modesty of a woman, depending on facts and circumstances of each case.”
- In response to the contention of the internal committee concluding proceedings against Y, the court held that departmental enquiry is a separate proceeding and does not have bearing on the criminal trial, which is to be adjudicated independently guided by the principles of criminal justice system as in the present case on the basis of sufficiency of material against the accused on record for the purpose of framing of charge.
- The court made observations in respect of the judiciary’s role in dealing with gender specific laws. The relevant paras of the order are reproduced hereinbelow for ease of reference.
“…The mere fact that legislation is designed to address specific gender-related concerns should not be misconstrued as being inherently biased against the opposite gender or being anti-men wherever applicable. To repeat, it is crucial to recognize that gender-specific laws are not meant to be “anti-opposite gender” but rather serve the purpose of addressing unique issues faced by a particular gender…”
“…gender specificity should not compromise the fundamental principles of fairness and justice…”
“…As a Court of Law, the scale of balance has to be in favour of justice, and not just one party…”
“…The fact that a piece of legislation is gender-specific should not be misconstrued to mean that the role of a judge also changes from being neutral to tilting towards a particular gender. Irrespective of the gender-specific nature of a law, the judicial duty fundamentally requires unwavering neutrality and impartiality. The judge’s role is to objectively interpret and apply the law, free from any form of gender bias or predisposition. Gender-specific legislation exists to address the unique concerns and challenges faced by particular genders within society. However, this does not imply that the judge is to be influenced or swayed by gender-related factors when administering justice unless specific presumptions are legislated in favour of a particular gender in law. In essence, judicial neutrality is an indispensable cornerstone of the legal system, ensuring that all parties, regardless of gender, are treated fairly and equitably…”
“…In India, the criminal justice system is adversarial in nature. However, it cannot be seen as adversarial between men and women per se. Instead, it should solely revolve around two individuals: one being the complainant and the other being the accused irrespective of the gender, however, at the same time, while adjudicating the cases firmly remembering and appreciating the social context and situation of a particular gender who may be in a lesser advantageous situation than the other…”
Conclusion: In light of the above, the court set aside the order of the trial court.
By – Divya R, Trainer & External Member, Chief Research & Development Officer